(derekbaker)

Realities, Sad or Otherwise, of Politics Today

A few thoughts following the Iowa caucus yesterday. I'd actually be thrilled to have any one of the leading Democratic candidates (or even Biden or Dodd, who have now bowed out) as president over any of the Republicans running, but having said that, someone needs to look at this in terms of how people will actually vote in November.

Barack Obama gave a great speech following his victory in the Democratic caucuses, which was much analyzed on CNN, at least. And I agree: he's very charismatic and can give great speeches. But he reminds me of Mario Cuomo: great, stirring speeches, smart guy — but why again should he be president? Or, beyond that (since people never seem to vote for who would be the better president, but the one they feel more comfortable voting for) how is it he could win a general election? Not only does his name end in a vowel — the third oldest political no-no in U.S. presidential elections, combined with the latest political no-no, which his last name rhymes with "Osama" and his middle name is "Hussein." More to the point, he's a black man, which is probably the second oldest political no-no. Or, even more problematic, he's half-black and half-white. That prejudice is much closer to dead now than it might have been forty or thirty years ago, but — as they say in the places where it's especially true — "I will guar-on-tee you" that it's a prejudice that will still affect voters regardless of what they say to pollsters. Perhaps those people would never vote for the Democratic candidate whoever it is. But it's a gigantic question mark whether there are enough people who vote in general elections without prejudice who can like or at least accept his story — "with a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that could only happen in the United States of America," as he put it — to outweigh those who are disturbed by it.

A friend of mine even said that it was interesting to have a Muslim running for president. Now, this friend has admitted in the past that he gets his news from Fox, so that shouldn't surprise me, but he honestly hadn't heard that Barack Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois. And this friend works in media, albeit not news media. But how many people who don't work in media in New York think he's a Muslim, too — even if they get their news (if they pay any attention to the news) from somewhere other than Fox?

Mike Huckabee is probably the bigger story today, since he was far more of a come-from-behind candidate and ended up far ahead of the better financed Mitt Romney. Huckabee is favored by social conservatives, but scares Wall Street (as evidenced by today's WSJ opinion article by David Sanders).

The big question mark for Huckabee in a general election is whether or not his overt social conservatism scares a majority of voters. Possibly, but not necessarily, given the percentage of people in America who call themselves "evangelical/fundamentalist" Christians.

As to the other leading candidates:

I also question Clinton's electability in a general election, along the same lines as I question Obama's. For one thing, she represents the oldest political no-no in presidential politics, which is that she's a woman. Surely we are beyond that prejudice, but I wouldn't yet bet money (or my primary vote) on it. But it's not just that she's a woman, but a Democrat. And a highly caricatured, hated Democratic woman at that. Huge swaths of the country look at Hillary Clinton and think "Andrea Dworkin reincarnated," even if they've never heard of Dworkin. Talk radiots call her a "feminazi" and while even larger numbers of people may not hate her quite as much as the people who would never vote for a Democrat anyway, she leaves a bad taste in many mouths. There may not be the true fire of man-hating feminism there, they think, but there's enough acrid smoke to keep them from wanting to see her on their television sets every night for 4 years.

Despite our progress as a country, I think that the only woman that might get elected president in America today would be a Republican. As disastrous as it would be, I suspect Condoleeza Rice has more chance today of being the first black or woman president than Obama or Clinton has as either. Only Nixon could go to China, and only Kay Bailey Hutchison or Elizabeth Dole could get elected to the Senate in places like Texas and North Carolina. And not because they represent some kind of weak feminity, because they don't. But because they're the kind of women the average red stater knows at church or, increasingly, work: smiling, gracious, but smart and strong. Iron fists in velvet gloves, in other words, same as what appealed to conservatives about Margaret Thatcher. With Hillary, I fear, too many voters still see only fingernails in brass knuckles.


Having said that — disclosure time — I voted for Hillary twice to the Senate and would continue to do so. I want a senator who has a national agenda and national ambitions on a national stage. But based on the part of the country I know best, I don't think she could win a general election, and may have even less chance than Barack. (I think she'd definitely have less chance if his name were different.)

Mitt Romney strikes me as the Republicans' John Kerry: capable, smart, but too stiff and not someone people would have much good feeling about voting for, unless possibly they feel "good" about voting against Clinton or Obama, which isn't a very positive kind of good feeling, to say the least. And when it comes to flip-flopping, he makes Kerry's nuancing look rock-ribbed.

Giuliani's name ends in a vowel and he can't even get the support of New York firefighters. Plus he's got more baggage than Samsonite. But mostly, his constant trope (quote today, after disastrous Iowa caucus: ""None of this worries me — Sept. 11, there were times I was worried") is going to wear thinner and thinner as the election wears on. It worked for George Bush four years ago, but my sense is that voters want this to be the election that moves us beyond 9/11. Even to a "please, dear God, can we not move on from 9/11?" degree.

McCain is the wildcard. Independents like him, talk shows like him. As much as he's played himself the maverick, there's could be a sense among Republicans (for whom loyalty counts a lot more than with Democrats) that he's earned it over the last eight years. Disclosure: I actually voted for McCain eight years ago (as a write-in candidate), because I didn't want a country led by George W. Bush and couldn't stomach four years of Gore's pedantry. I feel 180 degrees different about Gore today, given what's transpired since then, and almost 180 degrees different about McCain, but we'll see. The best I can say about McCain now is that he'd be an improvement over Bush, at least. Perhaps.

Which brings us to: John Edwards. Why, if Edwards came in second, is the other big story today about "what the Iowa caucuses mean for Hillary Clinton"? The mainstream media is so invested in an Obama-Clinton battle, they can't get off that story even when the electorate is pointing in another direction.

I think he's electable, especially against what you see among the Republicans. He's got more passion and more gravitas now than he had four years ago, and even if I don't necessarily agree with his solutions entirely (I'm not a big protectionist myself, and I'm not convinced nuclear energy is all that bad these days), he's at least pointing out problems in the country that are something other than George Bush's incompetence and partisanship, which is the only thing Obama and Clinton seem to focus on.

Completing the disclosures, Edwards is the only candidate this time around to whom I've donated any money — despite, as I've said, my misgivings on some of his positions. Not sure if I'll continue that, but I think, of all the Democrats (save, perhaps, Bill Richardson, who has the most stellar résumé but seems to excite no one), Edwards is the most electable in a general election. He's a white guy from the South, and you have to go back almost half a century to find a Democrat who won the White House who wasn't.

I obviously left out Fred Thompson from the above, but only inadvertently. Add him to the list in the sidebar box, with a special checkmark beside him: the politician created by television.

Labels: politics

---